204:
92:
245:
171:
64:
The valuer was held liable in the tort of negligence to the mortgagee for failing to carry out the valuation with reasonable care and skill.
86:
90:, but the principle that a third party could have a tort claim for negligent misstatement was brought back with the decision in
269:
238:
289:
284:
279:
294:
264:
231:
274:
191:
167:
144:
215:
41:
52:
A valuer instructed by a mortgagor sent his report to the mortgagee who made an advance in
166:(2nd ed.). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. pp. 169–171.
258:
203:
211:
148:
53:
133:"Hedley Byrne v. Heller: Judicial Creativity and Doctrinal Possibility"
132:
219:
93:
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
25:
20:
76:was retreated from in subsequent cases including
239:
8:
246:
232:
17:
105:
44:case, concerning negligent valuation.
7:
200:
198:
87:Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co
218:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by
14:
202:
1:
311:
197:
162:Mulheron, Rachael (2020).
40:(1888) 39 Ch D 39, is an
210:This article related to
131:Stevens, Robert (1964).
164:Principles of tort law
270:English tort case law
137:The Modern Law Review
112:(1889) 14 App Cas 337
290:1888 in British law
285:Valuation (finance)
280:Negligence case law
192:Smith v Eric S Bush
56:on the valuation.
295:English law stubs
227:
226:
173:978-1-108-72764-8
82:Le Lievre v Gould
33:
32:
302:
265:1888 in case law
248:
241:
234:
206:
199:
178:
177:
159:
153:
152:
128:
122:
119:
113:
110:
72:The decision in
42:English tort law
18:
310:
309:
305:
304:
303:
301:
300:
299:
275:1888 in England
255:
254:
253:
252:
187:
182:
181:
174:
161:
160:
156:
130:
129:
125:
120:
116:
111:
107:
102:
70:
62:
50:
12:
11:
5:
308:
306:
298:
297:
292:
287:
282:
277:
272:
267:
257:
256:
251:
250:
243:
236:
228:
225:
224:
207:
196:
195:
186:
183:
180:
179:
172:
154:
143:(2): 121–166.
123:
114:
104:
103:
101:
98:
74:Cann v Willson
69:
66:
61:
58:
49:
46:
37:Cann v Willson
31:
30:
27:
23:
22:
21:Cann v Willson
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
307:
296:
293:
291:
288:
286:
283:
281:
278:
276:
273:
271:
268:
266:
263:
262:
260:
249:
244:
242:
237:
235:
230:
229:
223:
221:
217:
213:
208:
205:
201:
194:
193:
189:
188:
184:
175:
169:
165:
158:
155:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
127:
124:
118:
115:
109:
106:
99:
97:
95:
94:
89:
88:
83:
79:
75:
67:
65:
59:
57:
55:
47:
45:
43:
39:
38:
28:
24:
19:
16:
220:expanding it
209:
190:
163:
157:
140:
136:
126:
117:
108:
91:
85:
81:
78:Derry v Peek
77:
73:
71:
68:Significance
63:
51:
36:
35:
34:
15:
212:English law
259:Categories
100:References
29:39 Ch D 39
149:0026-7961
185:See also
121:1 QB 491
60:Judgment
54:reliance
26:Citation
170:
147:
84:, and
214:is a
48:Facts
216:stub
168:ISBN
145:ISSN
261::
141:27
139:.
135:.
96:.
80:,
247:e
240:t
233:v
222:.
176:.
151:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
